Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 121 (PAT)

Kamaldeo Singh v. State of Bihar

2005-02-04

body2005
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to consider his case for promotion in senior selection grade with effect from 1.4.1986, super time selection grade with effect from 1.4.1989 and to the post of District Transport Officer (Ministerial) 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the respondent authorities for grant of promotion, as claimed by him, but the same was not given to him, whereas his juniors were promoted to the posts of District Transport Officer (Ministerial) in the year 1993 itself. It is further submitted that the petitioner represented his case before the authorities concerned, but no heed was paid to it, and, ultimately, he approached this Court by way of this writ application and thereafter he superannuated from his services and some of the notifications promoting the juniors to the petitioner to the posts of District Transport Officer (Ministerial) have been brought on record. 4. From the tenor of the writ application, it appears that certain posts of District Transport Officer (Ministerial) had fallen vacant and those posts were required to be filled up by way of promotion from amongst the clerical level employees. However, it has not been clarified as to whether the petitioner had also applied pursuant to the vacancies and his case as considered by the authorities and due concurrence of the Bihar Public Service Commission was obtained. It is only stated in the writ application that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the authorities for his promotion, but it is not known to this Court as to what procedure was adopted while recommending the case of the petitioner for promotion. 5. Ordinarily, if certain posts, which are to be filled up by way of promotion, fall vacant, then the eligible persons are required to apply and thereafter their cases are required to be considered in accordance with law. 6. Keeping in view these aspects of e matter, it would not be appropriate for this Court to issue a writ of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to promote the petitioner on the post of District Transport Officer (Ministerial) even notionally. 7. The best course, in my opinion, would be to direct the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in this regard, as contained in annexure 10. 8. 7. The best course, in my opinion, would be to direct the authorities concerned to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner in this regard, as contained in annexure 10. 8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 2, Transport Commissioner, Transport Department, Government of Bihar, is directed to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner, as referred to above, in accordance with law by speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 9. It is needless to say that respondent no.2 while disposing of the representation of the petitioner would consider the facts alleged in this writ application as to under what circumstances the juniors to the petitioner were considered and promoted to the posts of District Transport Officer (Ministerial) ignoring his claim. 10. With the direction/observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of.